Posted on Sun, Apr. 30, 2006

email this

print this

reprint or license this

Sex-offender bill's demise in execution

ISSAC J. BAILEY

A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

The Sex Offender Accountability and Protection of Minors Act of 2006, South Carolina's version of "Jessica's Law," is designed to protect our children from sexual predators.

It includes mandatory minimum sentences - sometimes 25 years, sometimes life, without the possibility of parole or time off for good behavior. Convicted felons of sex crimes will be forced to report their whereabouts more frequently and be tracked electronically. It has passed the S.C. Senate and is up for debate in the House on Wednesday.

As a father of two young kids, I'm in favor of harsh sentences for child predators, particularly because studies show they are highly likely to repeat their crimes.

Yet I have reservations about mandatory minimums. They sound good in theory but often leave little space for common sense nuance in actual practice. Such zero-tolerance thinking in the aftermath of the Columbine High School massacre is why some students have been suspended for bringing butter knives to school.

Maybe a harsh, no-nonsense law is needed to curtail those who harm our children. But I'm outraged because under current law, convicted sex offenders can move back into the same neighborhood of their victims. We have approximately 500 registered sex offenders in Horry County, yet officials can't tell them not to move back near their victims.

An 11-year-old Horry County girl and her mother had to live out this scenario recently. That's unconscionable. And that's why I like "Jessica's Law." According to the lawmakers I spoke with, in addition to making the areas near where children congregate off-limits to sex offenders, the new law would give parole officials a say in where they live.

But there's a potential roadblock to the bill's passage. Lawmakers included a provision to make the death penalty an option for some twice-convicted child molesters. While that might make them seem tough on crime in an election year, the provision may be unconstitutional, and even if it isn't, will hardly ever be used. And it is unnecessary.

If someone is given life in an S.C. prison, it is akin to the death penalty. He will die in prison either way, but the latter wastes taxpayer dollars on endless appeals for the privilege of killing him just a little faster.

The debate over the death penalty may derail the act, or at least slow its passage. If that happens this week, the House would be wise to remove it.

ONLINE | For past columns and to read Bailey's blog, go to MyrtleBeachOnline.com.